Plan Would Change How Judges Picked

It Would Eliminate Contested Elections In Favor Of What Is Called Merit Selection/retention.

February 25, 1996|By Debbie Salamone of The Sentinel Staff

You're standing in the voting booth, perplexed by candidates running for judge. A name sounds familiar, so you take a guess.

Welcome to the club.

Few people know a lot about the gavel-wielding men and women they put in some of the most powerful positions in the state. Judicial elections don't get much media attention because ethical rules stop candidates from talking about juicy issues.

That's why several statewide legal committees have proposed eliminating contested elections for judges - a suggestion that has been kicked around for two decades.

The committees, made up mostly of lawyers and judges, favor what is called merit selection/retention. The system calls for a committee of lawyers and others to recommend candidates to the governor, who makes the final choice. Then, every few years, voters decide whether the jurists should remain in office.

Florida chooses its appeals judges and Supreme Court justices this way. But including circuit and county judges - who handle cases ranging from murder to divorce to drunken driving - is controversial.

Opponents say the public would lose its right to choose jurists and that politics would influence the nominating committees. It also is difficult to remove bad jurists from office because few people are willing or could afford to launch an anti-retention campaign against them.

But proponents contend the system would help women and minorities become judges and generally put more qualified candidates on the bench. They say it also would enhance the impartiality of judges when they don't have to raise campaign contributions from lawyers whose cases they eventually may decide.

The Legislature may take up the idea during this session, but voters eventually would have to approve a constitutional amendment to make it reality.